I. After the book deals
describes how Esau will be the founder of a great people, the book returns
to the situation with Jacob and his sons, where conflicts arise between
Jacob's favorite son and his brothers.

A. The account opens
probably a little after the attack on Dinah and the destruction of the
people of Shechem, sometime before Jacob's death.

1. The episode
opens with Joseph at 17, tending sheep with his brothers, or even tending
his brothers, with authority over them. It is not clear whether
this authority began shortly before or after the attack on Dinah, but
it sets up the scene for the episode in which Joseph is sold into slavery.

His role was as
an assistant to the four sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad
and Asher. The six sons of Leah were presumably with other flocks.
Joseph is supposed to be the assistant, but it seems that he is asserting
more authority.

- Except
Joseph, the text refers to the young men not by name, but rather by
their mothers. It seems that Judah thought of his sons mostly
in accord with whose mother they were.

- Now that
Rachel is dead, Bilhah and Zilpah seem to have acquired the status of
wives. All of them are equal, except the beloved deceased Rachel.

3. The troubles
compound as Joseph brought bad reports to Jacob about his brothers.
It is not clear whether these reports are entirely accurate.

Unfortunately, Jacob
shows favor to Joseph, either because of his charismatic personality
and/or because he is the only grown son of the beloved Rachel.

1. Benjamin,
who will be favored later, was probably newborn or perhaps not even
born yet when Joseph is first loved more by Jacob.

2. The fact that
Joseph is later revealed (or becomes) much more virtuous than his brothers
does not justify this early favoritism, which like the favoritism of
Esau over Jacob by Isaac (and reverse by Rebekah) and like all such
favoritism will cause problems, both jealously and pride. See
St. Ambrose, On Joseph 2:5-6 (although also arguing that, because
of his virtue, Jacob had the legal right to give such a preference.)

The multi-colored
tunic (or robe) that Jacob gave Joseph was probably a sign of authority.
Jacob was making Joseph the heir apparent. Some of the Church
Fathers considered Joseph to be a prefigurement of Christ and the tunic
to be a figure of the many-fold gifts of the Spirit won through Christ.
See St. Caesarius of Arles, Sermon 93.

C. Joseph then recounts
two dreams that indicate his authority over his brothers and n fact
arguably over all of creation.

1. He tells the
first dream only to his brothers. That dream involved sheaths
of grain, with his sheath towering over the others and receiving obedience
from them. The imagery seems more from an agricultural society
such as Egypt, rather than a more shepherding society such as Israel.
It may be that Egyptian influences were already coming into his thoughts.

- The brothers
sense immediately the implication and are resentful of it. Ironically,
he has united them, but here in their opposition to them

Joseph tells about
his second dream to his brothers and then to his father. That
dream is more cosmic, with the brothers represented by stars and himself
by the sun. It is an extraordinary image, for the pagans considered
these cosmic figures to be the symbols of the highest gods, or even
the gods themselves. See Wis. 13:1-2. The Egyptians' highest
god Ra, is the god of the sun.

The text passes
over the brothers' reaction; it was presumably negative.

When Joseph tells
Jacob about the dream, Jacob reproves him, but also ponders the matter.
Jacob may well have believed that the dream was from God, but he may
also be worried that Joseph is antagonizing his brothers.

The text does not
make it clear whether this dream is from God or from Joseph's own
desires. God does sometimes speak to people in dreams. See,
e.g., Gen. 20:3-7, 31:10-13, 41:1-7; 1 Kings 3:1-15; Job 33:15-18;
Dan. 2:27-45; Matt. 1:20. But the Bible also warns that people
can easily delude themselves by their dreams, pretending that they are
messages from God, when in fact they are only messages from their own
fears or desires. See Jer. 23:25-32, 27:9-10, 29:8; Sir. 34:1-7.

One's interpretation
of these dreams makes a critical difference. If one reads them
as from God, Joseph is the rightful and innocent, although somewhat
ham-handed leader. If they are partially his own creation, he
is grasping for power not yet rightfully his; under that interpretation,
Joseph's persecution, although unjust, is also a teaching moment.
The Church Fathers tend to favor the former interpretation. See,
e.g., St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 41; St. Caesarius
of Arles, Sermon 89. Many modern commentators favor the latter
view. See Leon Kaas, The Beginning of Wisdom 516.

II. The conflict between
the brothers comes to a crisis as Joseph is sent to assert authority
over his brothers, and his brothers turn and sell him into slavery.

Sometime after these
events, Jacob's father takes an enormous risk and sends Joseph out
to check on them and their management of the flocks.

1. Overtly, the
mission is simply to report back to Jacob. However, subtly there
is a clear mission to assert power.

Jacob refers to
"our" flocks, when they are in fact his. The fact that Joseph
is now home with Jacob indicates that he has an advisory role.
And the adjectival pronoun "we" indicates that the flocks are partially
at least his.

The location is
a dangerous one, for it is now wilderness, but it was the city whose
inhabitants were slaughtered by these brothers. Jacob knows this
fact and thus knows the danger he is sending Joseph into. He may
be testing Joseph's dreams. For there is an eerie connection
to the testing of Abraham by the call to sacrifice of Isaac. Here,
as there, the command begins with the words, "Go, please"; and the
response is "Here I am."

Some of the Church
Fathers saw a connection between the Father sending His Son to bring
back the fallen race, who would betray the son. See, e.g., St.
Ambrose, On Joseph 3:9; St. John Chrysostom, Homilies On Genesis
61:10.

At first, the conflict
is averted as a mysterious man tells Joseph that the brothers have gone
on elsewhere, to Dothan. The man may have been an angel, giving
Joseph a last opportunity to relent, or perhaps guiding the impending
betrayal to a place where Joseph would be sold, rather than killed.
The hand of God may have subtly been at work here, not by preventing
disaster, for God would not stop human freedom, but rather by causing
it to work for His purposes all the same. See Gary Rendsburg,
The Great Courses: The Book of Genesis Vol. II 133. The hand
of God is frequently at work in the most mysterious ways, as Joseph
will later realize. See Gen. 50:10.

But then, as Joseph
approaches his brothers, they are filled with envy and, in a move that
anticipates future inheritance battles in salvation and secular history,
conspire to kill him and dispose of the body. See, e.g., Judges
9; 1 Kings 1.

- While such
violence is today not as common (although it exists) disputes over inheritance
can be among the ugliest. It is more than ironic that, precisely
when people are the most privilege, as Jacob's sons were regardless
of who ruled, ambition and envy can be the greatest.

Reuben steps in
and, as the eldest brother, plays a half-role in defending justice.
He proposes that they let Joseph die in a well, rather than shedding
his blood, intending to deliver Joseph later.

1. Reuben intends
to deliver Joseph back to Jacob, perhaps thereby getting back in Jacob's
good favor after the affair with Bilhah. He does not seem to realize
that that solution does not solve anything. For, unless Jacob
drives away the other nine brothers, the envy and murderous impulses
would remain, now with nine against two.

The proposal is
also bizarre, for killing someone by letting him thirst and starve to
death in a well would be worse than killing him outright. But
logic is no part of this sort of calculus.

The proposal does
at least gain a stay of execution. During the subsequent meal,
they may have been discussing plans for the future or working out a
common story.

Then some Ishmaelites
come by, and Judah, who will become the ruler of the brothers, proposes
another plan, one that will save Joseph.

1. He proposes
selling Joseph as a slave for two reasons: (1) it will gain them profit;
and (2) it would be somewhat more humane, or at least less grossly inhumane.
They may not have realized the danger that he could somehow get back
to Jacob and thus given away the message.

2. They sold
Joseph for twenty pieces of silver. Jesus would later be sold
for thirty pieces of silver, the price also listed by Zechariah as the
value that the people put on prophecy. See Zech. 11:12; Matt.
26:15.

Some Midianites
also come by and they get Joseph instead.

1. It is not
clear whether the Ishmaelites sold Joseph to the Midianites, whether
the Midianites got Joseph first, or whether they were different names
given to the same group (perhaps one of mixed origin.)

If the first or
third case is accurate, then Reuben presumably was not there when this
sale was occurring; and thus, when he returned, he assumed that Joseph
had been taken. If it is the second case, then Reuben was going
to bring Joseph to the Ishmaelites, but Midianites had gotten him first,
and neither Rueben nor his brothers know what happened.

In any case, the
brothers claim they found the bloody tunic of Joseph and send it to
Jacob. They do not come to him in person immediately, probably
because of shame or fear he will ask too many questions.

Jacob's response
may indicate he believed their message, but may also be accusatory.
For the term "a wild beast" elsewhere in Scripture indicates human
beings. See, e.g., Lev. 26:6; Ez. 34:22-25; see Ps. 124:6-7.

III. In a surprise move,
the text then turns in chapter 38 to the saga of Judah during the time
when Joseph is in Egypt.

Judah will become
the tribe from which the Davidic line of kings comes, and so it is important
to describe how the patriarch of this tribe, as flawed as he is, comes
to be selected.

Judah, the fourth
of Leah's sons, has already begun to take a leadership role in proposing
the sale of Jacob. Now he leaves the family for a time and, over
the course of about twenty or twenty-five years, grows from being powerful
but undisciplined to becoming a more repentant and responsible person.
Later on in the narrative of Joseph, it will be clear that he is in
the leadership position. See Gen. 43:2-10, 44:14-34, 49:9-12.

Judah, perhaps ashamed
and perhaps disgusted by the events surrounding Joseph, leaves for another
land, although one not far away. He then marries a Canaanite woman,
perhaps the first marriage among the sons of Jacob. And with her
he has three children: Er, Onan and Shelah. On the one hand, the
marriage to a pagan is very problematic; on the other hand it is not
clear what else Judah is to do.

D. The drama then
develops as Judah arranges for Er to marry one Tamar. However,
because of Er's sinfulness, the Lord slaughters him. It is not
clear what that sin was, but it may have been a sexual one as with Onan
later. In any case, God expects holiness from His people, whether
they think so or not. The text does not explain why God slaughters
Er (and later Onan) for their sins, but not Joseph's brothers.
God in His Providence sometimes imposes immediate punishment, and sometimes
defers it. One can never tell, and no one should be presumptuous.

E. Judah then tells
Onan to take Tamar as a sort of wife on his brother's behalf to raise
up children from Er. Later, the levirate law would call for such
a marriage. See Duet. 25:5-10. Other societies of the area
would do so, for it is essential to maintaining the stability of land
ownership through families, and thus to avoid the few acquiring larger
and larger estates. Among the Jewish people, the policy of keeping
land within the family was supposed to be maintain through the law that
property had to be returned to the family that originally owned in the
Jubilee Year, which occurred every 50 years. See Lev. 25; Kaas,
The Beginning of Wisdom 631. This attempt frequently failed
in practice. See, e.g., 1 Kings 21:1-16; Is. 3:13-15, 5:8.
Nevertheless, the levirate law was still in principle in effect during
Jesus' life, and it let to the Sadducee's question about how the
resurrection would work with a woman who married seven brothers in succession.
See Matt. 22:23-33; Mk. 12:18-27.

- The law may
also have been intended to prevent family violence. For it was
applicable only when property was held in common. In such a case,
there may be the desire to murder a brother, or at least not protect
him, for if a brother died, the remaining brothers would inherit more
of the property. However, if one of the brothers must raise children
for the deceased brother, that incentive would no longer exist.

F. At this point,
there was no requirement that the next son take his brother's widow
to raise up descendants for his brother. It is here simply a command
(or request) of Judah. However, Onan pretends to obey it.

G. At this point,
Onan uses a primitive method of contraception to avoid having children
for his brother. The reluctance is puzzling, for these children
would pose no threat to him; and it is likely that he would not have
to spend much time raising them. It may be that he disliked Er
and/or wanted to be the firstborn.

H. In any case, God
strikes Onan down as well for this sin against purity. The sin
was not simply that he refused to have children for his brother.
For, even when the levirate law came into effect about 400 years later,
the punishment for refusing the marriage was not death, but a sort of
public shaming. See Duet. 25:7-10. The sin was instead
that he had relations with her but refused to be open to children.
Such a refusal to be open to children would become almost unknown among
the Chosen People, for children were highly prized. However, before
and during the time of Christ and the early Church, such practices were
common among the Roman pagans and condemned by the Church. See,
e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II, qu. 154. art.
1, 11; Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae (1968) 11, 14; see also Gal.
5:19-21; Didache ch. 2 (both using the term pharimakos for one of the
pagan practices that Christians must avoid.)

IV. The dealings between
Judah and Tamar reflect Judah's initial irresponsibility, but also
the beginning of his conversion

A. Judah then promises
Tamar that his third son will marry her. However, not knowing
why the first two sons died, but suspecting some connection to Tamar,
he refuses to bring about the marriage. He may have intended a
permanent refusal, or he may have simply been delaying a decision.
In any case, he is unjust for his refusal to keep his promise, which
led Tamar to stay in her father's house as a widow, not seeking another
husband.

B. When Judah's
wife has died and Judah himself is travelling with a friend, Tamar decides
to take matters into her own hands. She engages in a move that
is both daring and bizarre and dresses up as a temple prostitute to
seduce Judah.

- The temple
prostitutes brought sexuality into pagan ritual practice to form a sort
of fertility cult. This perversion of worship was not uncommon
in the pagan world and would become a constant temptation for the Israelites.
See, e.g., Duet 23:18; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:47; 2 Kings 23:7.

C. In the wake of
his wife's death, Judah, with a rather unhelpful friend, goes to a
city that he is obviously not particularly familiar with. Upon
seeing what looks like a temple prostitute, he goes in with her.

- Judah's behavior
seems callous in the extreme, given his wife's recent death.
However, even people who are truly grieved at death sometimes engage
in reckless behavior to forget their grief and seek comfort from anyone
who can offer it. Here as elsewhere, death can be the opportunity
of holiness or sin.

Knowing Judah well,
Tamar plays into his recklessness, demanding his signs of authority,
his seal (hung from a cord) and his staff as a pledge for payment.
The fact that Judah gives up such important signs of his authority indicates
that he is reckless, either temporarily or perhaps as a matter of habit.
Once again, his friend is particularly useless.

- When he tries
to redeem the pledge he cannot, and only then learns that the town is
more moral than he thought, having no temple prostitutes. Probably
embarrassed at his foolishness, he does not pursue the matter.
But the truth will find a way out.

As she intended,
Tamar becomes pregnant. Because she is technically still betrothed
to Shelah, the affair would be called adultery. Judah angrily
responds by demanding her execution, which was apparently then, as later
in Jewish history, the penalty for adultery.

- His reaction
is, of course, totally hypocritical, both because of his own behavior
and because he has refused to hold the very marriage between Shelah
and Tamar that gives him an interest in her. However, the world
is frequently hypocritical: in looking down on impure women, but not
on impure men; in condoning licentiousness, but then being shocked at
the unwed pregnancies that result; and in being both relativistic when
it comes to sexual ethics, but still very fascinated by affairs.

Tamar then brings
forth the proof that she has been carefully guarding all along.
Legally, it does not excuse her conduct, but it does show the guilt
of Judah in his behavior and reminds him and everyone of his injustice
in withholding Shelah.

Judah finally repents
of his behavior and injustice, being honest with himself and others
and finding Tamar at least more in the right than he.

- He may
also have been stung by the fact that she uses very similar words in
proving his guilt in this matter to those that the brothers used in
presenting Joseph's coat in order to "prove" his death.

The account ends
with the birth of twins, which is both a blessing and a reminder that
the struggles between Jacob and Esau will be a prefigurement of struggles
to come. However, in this case, both brothers, and all of the
grandchildren of Jacob, will find a place in the kingdom.

- The focus on
the arbitrariness of determining which one of the brothers was born
first may be a mockery of the whole focus in the world on who is the
firstborn, rather than who is the most virtuous or capable of leading.